THERMAL

OPERATIONS

Over-all Heat Transfer Coefficients in Steam

And Hot Water Injection Wells
G. PAUL WILLHITE CONTINENTAL OIL CO.
JUNIOR MEMBER AIME PONCA CITY, OKLA.

Abstract ture difference6.T j Subscript j in Eq. 1 identifies the sur-

face upon which these quantities are based. In theory, any
Casing temperatures and wellbore heat losses are critical radial surface could be used to determine the character-
variables in steam and hot water injection welts. Several istic area. Some choices are more convenient to work with
papers have been written presenting methods of estimating than others. For example, if hot fluid is injected down
these parameters if the over-all heat transfer coefficient is tubing it is preferred to let A j be the outside surface area
known. The over-all heat transfer coefficient for a well- of an incremental length of injection tubing, 27rr to AL. and
bore is developed from its component terms to promote Iet6.T j be the difference between the temperature of the
a better understanding of the concept. Specific methods flowing fluid T, and the temperature at the cement-forma-
have been selected from the heat transfer literature for tion interface (the drill hole) T h Then V j = Va. referring to
estimating the size of each heat transfer component. Sim- the outside tubing surface area, and Eq. 1 would be
plified calculation procedures are suggested for determin-
ing the over-all heat transfer coefficient. Comparison of . (2)
calcul'ated and measured casing temperatures during steam
injection confirms the basic formulation and appl'icability If the fluid is injected down the casing or casing annulus,
of the suggested procedure for engineering calculations. the characteristic area could be the inside surface area of
the casing, and Eq. 1 would be written as
Introduction (3)
The design of steam and hot water injection projects Subscript ci refers to the inside casing surface.
requires estimation of casing temperatures and well bore An expression for the over-all heat transfer coefficient
heat losses. Several authors have shown that wellbore heat for any well completion can be found by considering the
losses and casing temperatures can be calculated if the heat transfer mechanisms between the flowing fluid and
over-all heat transfer coefficient is known.'-' This article the cement-formation interface. A brief derivation of the
discusses methods of determining the over-all heat trans- over-all heat transfer coefficient is presented in the fol-
fer coefficient from the process variables. lowing paragraphs for the case of a hot fluid flowing
through tubing insulated with a dry air annulus. Other
Development cases can be derived easily once the basic concepts are
understood. Fig. 1 shows the well bore model which will
The steady-state rate of heat flow through a wellbore be used to derive V to
Q Btu/hour is proportional to the temperature difference
between the fluid and the formation, and the cross-sectional
area perpendicular to the direction of heat flow. The pro- Heat Transfer Mechanisms
portionality factor, called the over-all heat transfer coeffi-
The rate of heat transfer between the flowing fluid and
cient, represents the net resistance of the flowing fluid, inside tubing waH is given by Eq. 4.
tubing, casing annulus, casing wall and cement sheath to
the flow of heat. Thus, we can write Q = 27rr" h, (T,-T ti ) 6.L . (4)
Q = V j Aj /),.T j . (1) h, is defined by Eq. 4 and is the film coefficient for heat
transfer based on the inside surface area of the tubing
Eq. 1 defines V j , the over-all heat transfer coefficient based
(SUbscript ti) and the temperature difference between the
on the characteristic area Aj and a characteristic tempera- flowing fluid and the inside tubing wall T, - T ti.
Original manuscript received in Society of Petroleum Engineers office Heat flow through the tubing wall, casing wall and the
April 4, 1966. Revised manuscript received Jan. 20, 1967. Paper (SPE
1449) was presented at SPE Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting held in cement sheath occurs by conduction. Fourier" discovered
Denver, Colo., May 23-24, 1966. Copyright 1967 American Institute of
Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, Inc. that the rate of heat flow through a body is directly pro-
lReferences given at end of paper. portional to the temperature gradient in the medium. The
MAY. 1967
607
proportionality factor k" is termed the thermal conduc- vection and conduction) and hr (radiation). These coeffi-
tivity of the medium. In the radial system of the wellbore, cients are based on the outside surface area of the tubing
(27rr,o ,6L) and the temperature difference between the
dT outside tubing surface and the inside casing surface. Thus,
Q = - 2-rrr k" dr 6L . . (5)
Q = 2-rrr" (h,+h,) (T,,,-T,,) ,6L . (9)
Integration of Eq. 5 with Q constant gives Eqs. 6 through We can now "assemble" V to from its component terms.
8 for conduction through the tubing wall, casing wall Note that
and cement sheath.
Tf-T" = (Tf-T ti ) + (T" -T t,) + (T,,,-T,,)
. Q -_ 27rk'nb. (Tti-T'o)b.L +(T'i-T",) + (Lo-T h ) (10)
T Ublllg, (6)
In~ Since heat flow in the well completion is assumed to be
r ti steady state at any particular time, the values of Q in
Eqs. 4 and 6 through 9 are equal. Solving for the respec-
(7) tive temperature differences in these equations and substi-
tuting them into Eq. 10 gives Eq. 11.

27rk,."", (T,,, - T,,) b.L

In~ In~
Q 1 r" 1 rei
Cement, Q = - - - - - - - - (8) T f - T , , = -[ - - - + - - +
27rb.L rt;h f
+--
k",,,.
In~ k'nh. r,.,(h,,+h,)
rco

Three modes of heat transfer are present in the casing

annulus. Heat is conducted through the air contained in +
Inr"-
r,,, 1 . (11)
the annulus. Radiation and natural convection also occur. k('('lll.

When a body is heated, radiant energy is emitted at a

rate dependent on the temperature of the body. The Comparison with Eq. 2 shows that
amount of radiant energy transported between the tubing rt 1',.
and casing depends on the view the surfaces have of each rt" In-' 1 rto In-
other and the emitting and absorbing characteristics of
V, = [ ~ + r" + + _c--_r_'_i
" rUh f k'nb. (h,+h,) k,,,,.
their surfaces. Heat transfer by natural convection in the
annulus between the tubing and casing is caused by fluid
motion resulting from the variation of density with tem-
I' '0 In -"--
I' ] - '
roo
perature. Hot fluid near the tubing wall is less dense than + k cem
. (12)
the fluid in the center of the annulus and tends to rise.
Similarly, the fluid near the casing wall is cooler (and In a similar manner, an expression for V'o can be written
denser) than in the center of the annulus and tends to to include the case when the injection tubing is insulated
fall. Fig. 2 is an interpretation of fluid motion in the cas- with commefCiial insulation of th'ickness AI' and thermal
ing annulus.' conductivity kin, .. Let rin,. - 1"0 = b.r. Then,
Radiation, natural convection and conduction are in-
dependent heat transfer mechanisms. Thus, the total heat r,,,ln~ r'ns.
r to In - -
flow in the annulus is the sum of the heat transferred by [ ~+ rti + 1', 0 + _-:c;-r-;,0c-;-;-;-;:
r"h f k'nb. kins. Tins. (hc'+h/)
each of the above mechanisms. In practice, it is conven-
ient to define the heat transfer rate through the annulus
r,o In _1"_' r,o In _r_" ]_'
in terms of the heat transfer coefficients h, (natural con- rei + _.....,._r,_,,,
+ k("Ufl. k("(>IlL.
(13)
TUBING

FLOWING
FLUID
Tt VELOCITY
DISTRIBUTION

',: - ..." .... FORMATION

~ .:- -j .,

VELOCITY
D I STR I BUT ION

Fig. I-Temperature distribution in an annular completion. Fig. 2-Natural convection in the casing annulus.'

608 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

The coefficients he' and he' in Eq. 13 are based on the
surface area 27Trins. 6.L and the temperature difference (18)
(T'ns. - T,,).
V t " can be calculated from Eqs. 12 or 13 once k'nb .. A heat transfer coefficient for radiation h, can be de-
k ins ., kens., k wn ., hf' he and h,. are determined. Representa- fined by factoring Eq. 16 and substituting as shown in Eqs.
tive values of the thermal conductivities of wellbore ma- 19 through 21.
terials are presented in Table 1. Q,. = 27Tr, "h,. (T'n*-T,.,*)6.L (19)
Table 1 shows that thermal conductivity of the tubing
and casing steel is considerably higher than for the other = 27Tr'nh,.(T'o-T,;)6.L , (20)
materials in the well bore. These terms thus constitute a where
small part of V ta and can be deleted from Eqs. 12 and he = (J'F tci (Tto*'+Tci*2) (Tto*+T,,*) (21)
13. This is equivalent to the assumption that T" = T tn
and Te; = Too. h, can be calculated if T tn and T e-i are known.
Film coefficients for water in turbulent flow are generally
high enough (500 to 2,000 Btu/hour sq ft OF) that the as- Natural Convection (h,)
sumption of an infinite film coefficient can be applied (i.e.,
T f = Ttl). Condensation coefficients for steam are also Literature concerning natural convection coefficients in-
large (500 to 4,000 Btu/hour sq ft OF). Thus, Eqs. 12 and 13 dicates the difficulty of their evaluation. Although natural
simplify to Eqs. 14 and 15. convection has been studied between enclosed vertical
plates, little work has been done using vertical concentric
rtoln )-'~
'f'O - - -_ __
cylinders. Results of vertical plate studies can be used for
estimating he between vertical concentric cylinders if the
-----,-- (14) effect of curvature is negligible.
k(.f'Ul.
Heat transfer by conduction and natural convection be-
r "' tween the inside casing surface and the outside tubing sur-
V to = [
rtoln~
r to
kins.
+ r to
rins.(h/+h/)
rto In..'::..
+ __r_,_o
k nlll .
] face is given by Eq. 22.

Qc
27Tk (Tci -T ) 6.L
hc tn
= ---'---'-'--"""':":':"'-- . (22)
. (15) rei
In -
Estimating hr and he where Qe = heat transfer rate due to conduction and nat-
ural convection, Btu/hour
The radiant heat flux Qr between the outer surface of
the tubing at temperature T to and the inside surface of khe = equivalent thermal conductivity of the annu-
the casing at Tci can be calculated from the Stefan-Boltz- lar fluid, Btu/hour ft OF.
mann law.' That is,
When natural convection is small, k hc = k"a, the thermal
. (16) conductivity of the fluid in the annulus. Since,
The asterisk refers to absolute temperature in OR (T + (23)
460) and (J' is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant (1.713 X
10-> Btu/sq ft hour OR'). Ftci 'is the view factor represent- h C = -k"c
--- (24)
ing the fraction of the radiation emitted from the external
rtf)ln~
surface area of tubing A too which is intercepted by the rto
inner casing surface area A'i' This term relates the geom-
etry of the wellbore and the emitting properties of the Dropkin and Sommerscales9 measured values of k hC be-
tubing and casing surfaces to the radiant heat flux. The tween enclosed vertical plates. Their data were correlated
emitting property of a surface is expressed in terms of its as a function of the Grashof number Gr and the Prandtl
emissivity, a measure of its ability to absorb radiation. number Pr of the annulus fluid. Eq. 25 is the correlation
For a concentric annulus, of Dropkin and Sommerscales in terms of the nomencla-
ture of the well bore,
_1_= -J-+ (_1__ 1) + Ato(~_ 1) .
Ftci F tci Eto ACi CCi
- (17)
0.049 (GrPr)"""" Pr"'" (25)
k/tn
In Eq. 17, eto and eci are the emissivities of the external where
tubing and internal casing surfaces, respectively. Ftci is the
(26)
over-all interchange factor between the two surfaces. Ftc;
can usually be taken as 1.0 for wellbore heat transfer, and and
Eq. 17 reduces to
Cun f.LUlI
Pr = - - - . (27)
k ha
TABLE I-THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY OF WELLBORE Eq. 25 is valid for 5 X 10' < GrPr < 7.17 X 10'. The
MATERIALS product of GrPr in wells with high-pressure gas in the
Thermal Conductivity annulus ranges from 10' to 10", so the extrapolation error
Material (Btu/hr ft . F) should not be large.
Steel 25.0
Insulation (calcium silicate) 0.02 to 0.06 Calculation Procedure
Cement:
Wet (at completion) 0.5 to 0.6 Calculation of the radiation and natural convection co-
Dry 0.2 to 0.4 efficients from Eqs. 16 through 27 requires knowledge of

609
the tubing and casing temperatures. Assume that the tub- 9.0'r---...,--;----,r--,...---.---r--.------.
ing temperature is known or can be calculated. This as-
sumption will be discussed later. The casing temperature
is calculated using Eq. 28, which was derived by com- 8.0 TUBING SURFACE

bining Eqs. 2, 7 and 8.

7.0t_.J~!:t\!.!:I.:!:I.JS~C~A,!;;I.S:.-----

T .. ~ + C:<~" + ':,:.::}"
T. U" (T, - T.) (28)
.
l.:
6.0

By neglecting the thermal resistance of the film, tubing and Nt-'

u.
casing, Eq. 28 reduces to Eq. 29. Ii
:I:
....
::>
Iii 4.0
T e , = Th + . . . (29) o
-5'
3.0
An expression for T. is needed to use Eq. 29. In devel-
oping the wellbore heat transfer model, the heat flow in
the well completion (Eq. 2) is equated to the radial heat
flow into the formation at the cement formation interface.
Using Ramey's procedure' the radial flow of heat at the
1.0
cement formation interface is approximated by Eq. 30.
o
Q = 27rk. (T,,-T e ) llz
. . . (30)
I(t) 700

Equating Eqs. 2 and 30 with llz = llL and then solving

Fig. 3-Variation of U to with tubing temperature for
br T" gives parameters of Table 3.
k,
T fl(t) +-U-Te is believed that values of I(t) are accurate to three signifi-
T,,= _______r_t_o~t-o-- . . . . . . (31) cant figures. An approximate value can be calculated using
1(1)+~u'
r to to
Eq. 32 for longer times. Short injection time is usually
considered to be less than 7 days.
where Te = undisturbed temperature of the formation at
2 Voil
depth z, of I(t) = In ~-- 0.29. . . . . . . . . (32)
r"
ke = thermal conductivity of the formation at the Examination of Eqs. 29 and 31 shows that the casing
depth z, Btu/hour ft of
temperature is a function of U to As previously noted, Tel
I(t) = transient heat conduction function. is used to calculate he and hro the natural convection and
radiation heat transfer coefficients for the casing annulus.
The transient heat conduction function l(t) enters into Hence, a trial-and-error or iterative solution is required
well bore heat loss calculations because heat flow in the to determine the proper combination of U to and Tel when
surrounding formation varies with time. Heat losses to radiation and natural convection are the primary heat
these formations are large initially, but decrease with time transfer mechanisms. The iterative solution assumes a
as thermal resistaiice to the flow of heat builds up in the value for Tci to calculate U to A new value of T et is cal-
f{)rmation. Methods of evaluating I(t) have been discussed culated using this value of U to in Eqs. 29 and 31. This pro-
in detail by Ramey' and the reader is referred to his pa- cedure is repeated until convergence is obtained. Normally,
per for background material. I(t) can be obtained from three calculations are sufficient to determine T e , and U to
Table 2 for sho~t injection times. Table 2 was prepared for a particular tubing temperature and injection time.
using the data and calculation procedure of Jessop.'O,il It The calculation procedure discussed in the preceding

TABLE 2-TIME FUNCTION f(t) FOR THE RADIATION BOUNDARY CONDITION MODEL
rtaU to _
0.01 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.0 2.0 5.0 10 20 50 100 00
~- --- ---- --- -- ---
at
rh:!.

0.1 0.313 0.313 0.314 0.316 0.318 0.323 0.330 0.345 0.373 0.396 0.417 0.433 0.438 0.445
0.2 0.423 0.423 0.424 0.427 0.430 0.439 0.452 0.473 0.511 0.538 0.568 0.572 0.578 0.588
0.5 0.616 0.617 0.619 0.623 0.629 0.644 0.666 0.698 0.745 0.772 0.790 0.802 0.806 0.811
1.0 0.802 0.803 0.806 0.811 0.820 0.842 0.872 0.910 0.958 0.984 1.00 1.01 1.01 1.02
2.0 1.02 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.08 1.11 1.15 1.20 1.22 1.24 1.24 1.25 1.25'
5.0 1.36 1.37 1.37 1.38 1.40 1.44 1.48 1.52 1.56 1.57 1.58 1.59 1.59 1.59
10.0 1.65 1.66 1.66 1.67 1.69 1.73 1.77 1.81 1.84 1.86 1.86 1.87 1.87 1.88
20.0 1.96 1.97 1.97 1.99 2.00 2.05 2.09 2.12 2.15 2.16 2.16 2.17 2.17 2.17
50.0 2.39 2.39 2.40 2.42 2.44 2.48 2.51 2.54 2.56 2.57 2.57 2.57 2.58 2.58
100.0 2.73 2.73 2.74 2.75 2.77 2.81 2.84 2.86 2.88 2.89 2.89 2.89 2.89 2.90

610 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

paragraph was used to prepare Fig. 3, a plot of V to vs TABLE 3-PARAMETERS FOR FIG. 3
tubing temperature for several modifications of an annular Hole size: 9.625 in.
completion. Steam was assumed to be injected down 2%- Casing (7 in., 26 Ib, J55):
in. tubing in 7-in. casing for 14 days. The casing was OD 7.000 in.
cemented to the surface in a 9% -in. hole with a high-tem- /D 6.276 in.
perature resistance cement. Parameters used to calculate Tubing (2~ in., 6.4 Ib, J-55):
V t " are summarized in Table 3. OD 2.875 in.
ID 2.441 in.
The five completions presented on Fig. 3 were selected ke: 1.4 Btu/hrft OF
to illustrate the heat transfer mechanisms in the annuli of kt'I'Ill.: 0.51 Btu/hr ft F
stearn and hot w~ter injection wells. A standard comple-
tion is 2% -in. tubing (mill-scale surface) set on a packer
killS.: 0.0256 + (T-50) (3.67 X 10-')
Btu/hr ft OF
with the annulus open to the atmosphere. Radiation is the a: 0.04 sq ft/hr
primary heat transfer mechanism in this completion. Since eto = lOci (mill scale): 0.9
radiation varies with the emitting properties of the tubing eto (aluminum paint): 0.4
surface, the radiation heat transfer coefficient hr can be L: 80F
lowered by coating the tubing surface with a highly reflec-
tive material. This is shown by the curve for aluminum
paint which was assumed to have an emissivity of 0.4. Well bore heat losses and casing temperatures for the in-
Another completion technique is to use high-pressure air jection of wet steam are often calculated by assuming that
or nitrogen to eliminate the down-hole packer. The radia- T f , Tti and T to are equal to the inject:ion temperature. A
tion coefficient is nearly the same value as when a packer single value of Uto evaluated at the injection temperature
is used. However, the natural convection coefficient is and at the average formation temperature is used in these
larger by one or two orders of magnitude because the calculations.
density of the gas in the annulus increases. The effect of This is an approximation because the temperature of
natural convection is illustrated by comparing the curves the flowing fluid may be lower, equal to or higher than
with annulus pre3sures of 0, 1,000 and 2,500 psig. the injection temperatures. The actual value depends on
Radiation and natural convection can be minimized by the relationship between well bore heat loss, two-phase fric-
insulating the injection tubing. Commercial insulation has tional pressure drop and the pressure change due to den-
such a low thermal conductivity (0.02 to 0.06 Btu/hour ft sity variations. In many projects, operating conditions are
OF) that conduction through the insulation controls well- such that the difference between the sand face temperature
bore heat transfer. Radiation and natural convection co- and the injection temperature is less than 10 percent. Thus,
efficients based on the outer surface of the insulation can a single value of V ta may provide sufficient accuracy for
be large, but their effect on V to is small since they are in engineering calculations. This can be checked by varying
series with the high thermal resistance of the commercial the fluid temperature in accordance with rough estimates
insulation. The lower curve on Fig. 3 was calculated for of the pressure changes. If approximate calculations in-
calcium silicate insulation 1 in. thick. dicate large temperature changes, simultaneous solution
of the total energy and mechanical energy equations may
Fig. 3 is useful in estimating the over-all heat transfer be required for good estimates of heat losses and casing
coefficient for wells with parameters other than those in temperatures.
Table 3. The following procedure is suggested.
1. Select a value of V tu corresponding to the tempera-
ture of the fluid or tubing from Fig. 3 for the correspond- Practical Application of the Over-all Heat Tmnsfer
ing well completion. Coefficient in Engineering Calculations
2. Determine I(t) from Table 2 or Eq. 32.
3. Calculate T. using Eq. 31. Casing fa'ilure is a known problem in production wells
stimulated with steam. While it is not always possible
4. Calculate Tci from Eq. 29. to determine exactly when a casing will fail, a knowledge
5. Then estimate h" (Eqs. 18 and 21) and h, (Eqs. 24 of the casing temperature is essential to estimate and mini-
through 27). mize thermal stresses in the casing. Casing temperature~
6. Determine a new value of V ta from Eqs. 14 or 15. were calculated for the injection of steam at 650F using
7. Compare the calculated value of V ta with the value the parameters of Table 3. These temperatures are plotted
used in Steps 2 through 5 and repeat Steps 2 through 6 un- against injection rime on Fig. 4 for the five completions
til agreement is obtained between two successive trials. of Fig. 3.
Normally, three sets of calculations are sufficient. A sam- The cement sheath does not remain wet at shallow
ple calculation is presented in the Appendix. depths during steam or hot water injection. As the casing
temperature increases, the boiling point of water in the
cement may exceed the prevailing hydrostatic pressure.
Variable Tubing Temperature The water is either superheated in situ or driven from the
cement into the surrounding formation by vaporization.
Fig. 3 relates V to to the fluid or tubing temperature The latter proces, allows the cement sheath to dry, and
when the formation temperature is 80F. Fluid tempera- its thermal conductivity will decrease to the values in
tures may vary considerably with depth when hot water Table 1. When drying occurs, V to is approximated by re-
or superheated st~am is injected.,,4 The over-all heat trans- ducing the thermal conductivity of the cement to the low-
fer coefficient will also vary with depth. In tbis case the er values. Then the over-all heat transfer coefficient rep-
depth step method discussed by Satter' can be used to de- resents the conditions after drying for all injection times.
termine the tubing temperature at each depth in the well. As an example, casing temperatures for the low-pressure
This calculation procedure involves two successive iterative annulus of Fig. 4 were recalculated using 0.2 Btu/hour ft
solutions because both tubing and casing temperatures de- F for the thermal conductivity of dry cement. The tem-
pend on the over-all heat transfer coefficient. peratures are shown as the dashed curve on Fig. 5. The

MAY. 19fi7 611

corresponding curve from Fig. 4 was reproduced on Fig.
S for comparison.
r to Inr'B',
--
V to = [
r,o + ___r~,..:..o___ +
Drying may also extend into the formation if the for- k ins . rjns. (he' + hr') ~--;--k,e-m-,
mation is porous and the temperature of the drill hole Th
exceeds the boiling point of water at formation pressure. r to In _roJ ]-'
To investigate this phenomenon, a dry zone was included r" (34)
+-~-
in the over-all heat transfer coefficient. Fig. 6 is the dry k"
zone heat transfer model. The radius of the dry zone ra
is defined as the point where the temperature of the dry Now the over-all heat transfer coefficient is based on
zone T d is equal to the boiling point of water at hydro- the outside surface area of the tubing and the tempera-
static pressure. This adds another conduction term to the ture difference between the injected fluid and the dry zone
over-all heat transfer coefficient so that Eqs. 14 and 15 be- interface. The radius of the dry zone is substituted for r"
come in the calculation of I(t) from Eq. 32 or Table 2. With
these changes the equations for the casing temperature
rto In 2 r to In _r_" )-' and the dry zone interface temperature are
Ih +
V'O=(-h r,o + _~_r_" (33)
(-r /' k"""" kd
600~T~U~B~IN~G~S~U~R~~~CE~---.~--~-----r----~--~A~NN~U~L~US~ T" =
_
~M~IL:L:~:~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::P=RFoE$~URE
1000
psiq

+ _k_,-T
T f I(t)
~
____-------------------o T"
r to Uto (
= ------,---- (36)
UJ
II:
400
f(t)+~v'
__-------------------0
Tto to
~
0:
W
0. This model assumes that the dry zone forms at time
::Il
UJ
I-
zero, although it is known that drying will not begin until
the drill hole temperature T" is at least 212F. The dry zone
.'"
Z
<J> radius is not constant but will change with time. As a re-
0,

__ __----------------------O
~
I" COMMERCI AL INSULATION
sult, the model does not represent the vaporization and
condensation which occurs during the formation of the
dry zone. It will indicate the maximum effect of a dry
zone. A numerical solution would provide a better repre-
6 8 10 12 14 sentation if the problem is severe enough to warrant fur-
INJECTION TIME, DAYS ther investigation.
Fig. 4-Calculated casing temperatures when 650F steam Calculations were made to estimate the effect of a dry
is injected down tubing.
zone on casing temperature. An unconsolidated sand was
used as the formation because it shows the effect of a
I I
large difference between the wet and dry thermal conduc-
tivities; i.e., 1.6 Btu/hour ft OF for the wet zone and 0.152
Btu/hour ft OF for the dry. These values correspond to the
700- - data of Woodside and Cliffe" for Ottawa sand (l00 lb/
Cll ft). Calculated casing temperatures were 50 to 75F
INJECTION TEM PER ATURE
higher than the dry cement curve of Fig. 5 when Ta =
600- - 212F and ra was evaluated at the maximum injection time.
The value of rd for T" = 212F was found by plotting cal-
culated values of Td against assumed values of rd'

T, 1-__..:JTt.yi4

300 I- -
ke I . 4 BTU/HR. FT oF.
200 - -
WET
FORMATION
100 - FORMATION TEMPERATURE
- ANNULUS
FLOWING
FLUID

I I
00 5 10 15
TIME. DAYS

Fig. 5-Comparison of casing temperatures for dry and

wet cements. Fig. 6-Dry zone heat transfer model.

612 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

 Field Results Ftc< = view factor based on outside tubing and inside
casing surfaces, dimensionless
Casing temperatures were measured during steam injec-
tion in one of our steam injection projects. Steam was 'Ftc< = over-allinterchange factor between the outside
injected down tubing set on a packer in 7-in. casing. Cas- tubing and inside casing surfaces, dimensionless
ing temperatures were calculated for these conditions us- g = acceleratIon due to gravity, 4.17 X 108 ft/hr'
ing k, = 1.0 Btu/hour ft P, k ecm . = 0.2 Btu/hour ft o f and Or = Orashof number, dimensionless
a drill hole diameter of 12 in. Measured and calculated cas- he = heat transfer coefficient for natural convection
ing temperatures are compared on Pig. 7. The long-term based on the outside tubing surface and the
agreement is well within the accuracy required for en- temperature difference between the outside tub-
gineering calculations. ing and inside casing surfaces, Btu/hr sq ft 0p
There was a large difference between the calculated and he' = heat transfer coefficient for natural convection
measured temper~ltures during the first 48 hours of injec- based on the outside insulation surface and the
tion, part of which was due to lower injection tempera- temperature difference between the outside in-
tures (50F) during this time. The remainder of the differ- sulation and inside casing surface, Btu/hr sq ft
ence includes unsteady-state effects in the wellbore. It was OF
previously stated that the well bore model represents a hI = film coefficient for heat transfer or condensation
quasi-steady system. That is, steady-state equations are
coefficient based on inside tubing or casing sur-
used to describe heat transfer through the region included
face and the temperature difference between the
in the over-all heat transfer coefficient. Transient effects
flowing fluid and either of these surfaces, Btu/
such as vaporization of water in the cement and surround- hr sq ft 0p
ing formation are not included. Thus, a significant differ-
ence between calculated and measured casing tempera- he = heat transfer coefficient for radiation based on
tures should be expected during the short transient period the outside tubing surface and the temperature
after injection begins. difference between the outside tubing and inside
casing surfaces, Btu/hr sq ft OF
h/ = heat transfer coefficient for radiation based on
Conclusions outside insulation surface and the temperature
difference between the outside insulation and in-
It has been shown that the over-all heat transfer coeffi- side casing surfaces, Btu/hr sq ft OF
cient can be estimated from the process variables. A brief
kess. = thermal conductivity of the casing material at the
derivation was presented to indicate how various heat
transfer mechani~ms are included in an over-all heat average casing temperature, Btu/hr ft OF
transfer coefficient. A simplified calculation procedure was k eem . = thermal conductivity of the cement at the average
outlined for determining the over-all heat transfer coeffi- cement temperature and pressure, Btu/hr ft OF
cient. Comparison of predicted and field casing tempera- kd = thermal conductivity of the dry zone, Btu/hr ft OF
tures confirms the basic formulation and applicability of k. = thermal conductivity of the formation, Btu/hr ft OF
the suggested procedures for engineering calculations. k,. = thermal conductivity, Btu/hr ft OF
kha = thermal conductivity of the fluid in the annulus at
Nomenclature the average temperature and pressure of the
annulus, Btu/hr ft OF
Aj = characteristic surface area, sq ft (subscript j iden- khC = equivalent thermal conductivity of the annular
tifies the surface) fluid with natural convection effects, evaluated
A c ' = inside surface area of the casing, sq ft at the average temperature and pressure of the
At, = outside surface area of the tubing, sq ft annulus, Btu/hr ft OF
Ca. = heat capacity of the fluid in the annulus at the kin . = thermal conductivity of the insulation at the aver-
average annulus temperature, Btu/lb OF age temperature of the insulation, Btu/hr ft OF
f(t) = transient time function, dimensionless k'Ub. = thermal conductivity of the tubing material at the
average tubing temperature, Btu/hr ft OF
Pr = Prandtl number, dimensionless
Q = heat flow through the well bore, Btu/hr
Qc = heat flow in the annulus by natural convection and
conduction, Btu/hr
Q,. = heat flow in the annulus due to radiation, Btu/hr
...:
..; 400 - - CALCULATED r = radius, ft
!i r = inside radius of casing, ft
...
Ii0:
:11300
cj

rco = outside radius of casing, ft

~ ra = radius of dry zone (distance where Td is equal to
the boiling point of water at formation pressure)
LOW PRESSURE ANNULUS
r" = radius of drill hole, ft
rins. = radius of the outside insulation surface, ft
100
r ti = inside radius of tubing, ft
rto = outside radius of tubing, ft
INJECTION TIME, HOURS t = time, hours or units consistent with IX
Fig. 7-Comparison of field data with calculated results. T = temperature, OF

613
 T* = absolute temperature, oR = of + 460 3. Leutwyler, Kurt and Bigelow, H. 1.: "Temperature Effects on
Subsurface Equipment in Steam Injection Systems", J. Pet.
Ta. = average temperature of the fluid in the annulus, Tech. (Jan., 1965) 93-101.
OF
4. Satter, Abdus: "Heat Losses During Flow of Steam Down a
Te; = temperature of inside casing surface, of Wellbore", J. Pet. Tech. (July, 1965) 845-851.
Teo = temperature of outside casing surface, of 5. Leutwyler, Kurt: "Casing Temperature Studies in Steam In-
T. = boiling point of water at formation pressure, OF jection Wells", J. Pet. Tech. (Sept., 1966) 1157-1162.
T, = temperature of flowing fluid, of 6. Fourier, J. B. J.: "Theorie Analytique de la Chaleur", Gau-
thier-Villers, Paris (822); English tramlation by Freeman,
T, = undisturbed temperature of the formation, of Cambridge (1878).
T" = temperature at cement-formation interface, OF 7. Eckert, E. R. G. and Carlson, W. 0.: "Natural Convection in
T'ns. = temperature of the outside surface of the insula- an Air Layer Enclosed Between Two Vertical Plates with Dif-
tion, of ferent Temperatures", Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer (1961) 2,
106-120.
Ttl = temperature of inside tubing surface, of
8. McAdams, W. H.: Heat Transmission, 3rd Ed., McGraw Hill
T to = temperature of outside tubing surface, OF Book Co., New York (1954).
Vel = over-all heat transfer coefficient based on the in- 9. Dropkin, D. and Sommerscales, E.: "Heat Transfer by Natural
side casing surface and the temperature differ- Convection in Liquids Confined by Two Parallel Plates In-
ence between the fluid and cement-formation clined at Various Angles with Respect to the Horizontal", J.
interface, Btu/hr sq ft OF Heat Transfer; Trans., ASME, Series C (Feb., 1965) 87, 77-
84.
U j = over-all heat transfer coefficient based on the
characteristic surface area Ai and characteristic 10. Jessop, A. M.: "Heat Flow in a System of Cylindrical Sym-
metry", Cdn. J. of Physics (1966) 44, 677-679.
temperature difference t::..T;, Btu/hr sq ft OF
11. Personal communication.
V ta = over-all heat transfer coefficient based on the out-
side tubing surface and the temperature differ- 12. Woodside, W. and Cliffe, J. E.: "Heat and Moisture Transfer
ence between fluid and cement-formation inter- in Closed Systems of Two Granular Materials", Soil Science
(1959) 87, No.2, 75-82.
face, Btu/hr sq ft OF
z = depth, ft
IX = thermal dlffusivity of the earth, sq ft/hr APPENDIX
f3 = thermal volumetric expansion coefficient of the Sample Calculation

T ~n * for an ideal Steam at 600F is injected down 3Vz -in. tubing set on
1
fluid in the armulus, R- =
a packer in 9% -in., 53.5-1b/ft, N-80 casing. The annulus
contains a stagnant gas at 14.7 psia and the casing is ce-
gas, or generally = - 1
-;;:: (oPon
~
) p where P mented to surface in a 12-in. hole. A temperature survey
in the well indicates a mean subsurface temperature of
is the annulus pressure 100F. The reservoir is at 1,000 ft. Estimate the over-all
t::..L = increment of tubing or casing length, ft heat transfer coefficient, average casing temperature and
t::..r = insulation thickness, ft wellbore heat loss after 21 days of continuous injection.
t::..T; = characteristic temperature difference related to Data
V j and the surface area A;, of rIO= 0.146 ft
eta = emissivity of outside tubing surface, dimensionless rel = 0.355 ft
ee' = emissivity of inside casing surface, dimensionless rca = 0.400 ft

u = Stefan-Boltzmann constant, 1.713 X 1O-'/sq ft hr r" = 0.500 ft

oR' IX = 0.0286 sq ft/hr

pan = density of the fluid in the annulus at Tao and pres- k, = 1.0 Btu/hr sq ft OF /ft
sure P, lb/cu ft eta = Ed = 0.9

p.o. = viscosity of the fluid in the annulus at Too and P, kcem . = 0.2 Btu/hr sq ft OF /ft
lb mass/ft hr
Step I-estimate V,,, from Fig 3 for an injection tem-
perature of 600F and the low pressure annulus: V,,, =
Acknowledgments 4.05 Btu/hr sq ft OF.

The author wishes to express his appreciation to the Step 2-calculate f(t). Since t = 21 days, Eq. 32 can be
management of Continental Oil Co. for permission to
publish this article. The comments of W. L. Martin with used: f(t) = In 2 V(0.0~~6) (504) -0.29 = 2.43.
Continental in Ponca City, Okla., and the assistance of W.
K. Dietrich with Continental in Denver in obtaining the Step 3-calculate T" (Eq. 31):
field data are gratefully acknowledged. J. A. Sievert, Con-
tinental, Ponca City, assisted in the evaluation of f(t). (600) (2.43)
1.0 + (100)
(0146) (4.05) = 395F .
T" =
1.0
References 2.43 + (0.146) (4.05)
1. Boldizar, T.: "The Thermal Field of the Earth's Crust and Its Step 4-calculate TOi neglecting casing and surface re-
Influence on the Ventilation of Deep and Hot Mines", Acta sistances (Eq. 29):
Technica Acad. Scient. Hung., XVI Fase 3-4, 415-427.
2. Ramey, H. J., Jr.: "Wellbore Heat Transmission", J. Pet. Tech. T e, = 395 + (0.146) (4.05) In 0.5 (600 - 395) = 530F.
(April, 1962) 427-435. 0.2 0.4

614 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

 Step 5-estimate h, (Eqs. 18 and 21): k hc = 0.046 Btu/hr ft of;
1 0.046
F
t
" = _1 + 0.146 (_1__ 1.0) = 0.865
then, he = --------;;~-=-
0.146 I 0.355
0.9 0.355 0.9 n 0.146
h, = (0.865) (1.713 X 10-') [(600 + 460)' = 0.36 Btu/hr sq ft of .
+(530+460),] [(600 + 460) + (530 + 460)]
Step 6-calculate Uta (Eq. 14):
= 6.39 Btu/hr sq ft of;
estimate h, (Eqs. 24 through 27): 0.5)-'
. 1 0.146 In 0.4
Tan = 565F Uta = ( 6.39 + 0.36 + 0.2
po. = 0.0388 lb/cu ft
fta. = 0.069 lb mass/ft hr = 3.22 Btu/hr sq ft of.
Ca. = 0.245 Btu/lb of Step 7-since the assumed and calculated values of U t "
k"a = 0.0255 Btu/hr sq ft OF /ft do not agree, repeat Steps 2 through 6 until agreement is
obtained between two sl-.ccessive trials. Results of succes-
f3 = _1_ sive iterations are tabulated below.
T(,n*
= 9.75 X 10-' R-'; Assumed Calculated
calculate Pr using Eq. 27: Uta h, he U to
(Btu/hr T" T,; (Btu/hr (Btu/hr (Btu/hr
Pr - (0.245) (0.069) = 0.66 Trial sq ft OF) (OF) (OF) sq ft OF) sq ft OF) sq ft OF)
- 0.0255
1 4.05 395 530 6.39 0.36 3.22
rei -r tu = 0.209 ft; 2 3.22 367 487 6.00 0.42 3.15
3 3.15 364 485 5.97 0.42 3.14
calculate Gr using Eq. 26: The weHbore heat loss can be calculated using Eq. 2:
G _ (0.209)" (4.17 X 10')(0.0388)' (9.75 X 10-') (600 - 530) Q = (27T) (0.146) (3.14) (600 - 364) (l ,000)= 680,000 Btu/hr.
r - (0.C69)' ***
= 8.26 X 10';
calculate k he from Eq. 25:
A BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH AND PHOTOGRAPH OF G. PAUL

kk'" = (0.049) [(8.26 X 10') (0.66)]""33' (0.66),074 = 1.81 WILLHITE APPEAR ON PAGE 21 OF THE JAN., 1967, ISSUE OF
"a JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY.

MAY, 1967